Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Priest


I understand that it has a 50 year expiration date, though I believe this was an approximation on behalf of Wizards, even though this is an infernal contract (and would invalidate it). Thus, I believe the 1494 DR date is simply a mistake by the authors. BG3 comes after BG:DiA, as those tiefling refugees reference "the Descent" which had already happened.

Can you please give me a source for the 1374 DR date for BG:DA. Where does it say this? Is it in a sourcebook or the game itself?


Do you know what is truly invalid in the infernal contract? It's not the expiration date, buddy. Thavius being High Overseer of Elturel. Thavius surrendered the city in his "capacity as High Overseer of Elturel", yet signs it at a time when he was a priest of Torm, NOT the High Overseer, and in fact the vampire High Rider was still the legitimate ruler, meaning Thavius had no right or authority to surrender the city. That implies this part of the contract is actually invalid. Read the link.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thavius_Kreeg


Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance's time period was mentioned in the game itself, as I recall, I don't think there are no sourcebooks mentioning anything connected to BG:DA. 1374 DR is also known as the Year of Lightning Storms.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: United Kingdom
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: United Kingdom
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Priest


I understand that it has a 50 year expiration date, though I believe this was an approximation on behalf of Wizards, even though this is an infernal contract (and would invalidate it). Thus, I believe the 1494 DR date is simply a mistake by the authors. BG3 comes after BG:DiA, as those tiefling refugees reference "the Descent" which had already happened.

Can you please give me a source for the 1374 DR date for BG:DA. Where does it say this? Is it in a sourcebook or the game itself?


Do you know what is truly invalid in the infernal contract? It's not the expiration date, buddy. Thavius being High Overseer of Elturel. Thavius surrendered the city in his "capacity as High Overseer of Elturel", yet signs it at a time when he was a priest of Torm, NOT the High Overseer, and in fact the vampire High Rider was still the legitimate ruler, meaning Thavius had no right or authority to surrender the city. That implies this part of the contract is actually invalid. Read the link.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thavius_Kreeg


Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance's time period was mentioned in the game itself, as I recall, I don't think there are no sourcebooks mentioning anything connected to BG:DA. 1374 DR is also known as the Year of Lightning Storms.




I'm aware that there are other problems with the contract, but that's not the point, as we were discussing the date.
For BG:DA, where is it mentioned in the game? I did not see a mention of it in my playthrough.


- Priest
Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Priest
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Priest


I understand that it has a 50 year expiration date, though I believe this was an approximation on behalf of Wizards, even though this is an infernal contract (and would invalidate it). Thus, I believe the 1494 DR date is simply a mistake by the authors. BG3 comes after BG:DiA, as those tiefling refugees reference "the Descent" which had already happened.

Can you please give me a source for the 1374 DR date for BG:DA. Where does it say this? Is it in a sourcebook or the game itself?


Do you know what is truly invalid in the infernal contract? It's not the expiration date, buddy. Thavius being High Overseer of Elturel. Thavius surrendered the city in his "capacity as High Overseer of Elturel", yet signs it at a time when he was a priest of Torm, NOT the High Overseer, and in fact the vampire High Rider was still the legitimate ruler, meaning Thavius had no right or authority to surrender the city. That implies this part of the contract is actually invalid. Read the link.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thavius_Kreeg


Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance's time period was mentioned in the game itself, as I recall, I don't think there are no sourcebooks mentioning anything connected to BG:DA. 1374 DR is also known as the Year of Lightning Storms.




I'm aware that there are other problems with the contract, but that's not the point, as we were discussing the date.
For BG:DA, where is it mentioned in the game? I did not see a mention of it in my playthrough.

Canon material provides two distinct dates for the events described in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus: the adventure itself, described in chapters 1 through 5, takes place in 1494 DR, according to events mentioned in pages 7 and 47, while the Baldur's Gate Gazetteer describes the city as of 1492 DR (p. 159).

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: United Kingdom
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: United Kingdom
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Priest
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Priest


I understand that it has a 50 year expiration date, though I believe this was an approximation on behalf of Wizards, even though this is an infernal contract (and would invalidate it). Thus, I believe the 1494 DR date is simply a mistake by the authors. BG3 comes after BG:DiA, as those tiefling refugees reference "the Descent" which had already happened.

Can you please give me a source for the 1374 DR date for BG:DA. Where does it say this? Is it in a sourcebook or the game itself?


Do you know what is truly invalid in the infernal contract? It's not the expiration date, buddy. Thavius being High Overseer of Elturel. Thavius surrendered the city in his "capacity as High Overseer of Elturel", yet signs it at a time when he was a priest of Torm, NOT the High Overseer, and in fact the vampire High Rider was still the legitimate ruler, meaning Thavius had no right or authority to surrender the city. That implies this part of the contract is actually invalid. Read the link.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thavius_Kreeg


Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance's time period was mentioned in the game itself, as I recall, I don't think there are no sourcebooks mentioning anything connected to BG:DA. 1374 DR is also known as the Year of Lightning Storms.




I'm aware that there are other problems with the contract, but that's not the point, as we were discussing the date.
For BG:DA, where is it mentioned in the game? I did not see a mention of it in my playthrough.

Canon material provides two distinct dates for the events described in Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus: the adventure itself, described in chapters 1 through 5, takes place in 1494 DR, according to events mentioned in pages 7 and 47, while the Baldur's Gate Gazetteer describes the city as of 1492 DR (p. 159).


I'm aware of that note of the Forgotten Realms wiki, and it will likely be changed soon if more confirmation comes about the 1492 DR date.
I was asking for the date of "BG:DA", i.e., Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, not BG:DiA. Where in the video game can you find the date for Dark Alliance? Thanks.


- Priest
Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Priest

I'm aware of that note of the Forgotten Realms wiki, and it will likely be changed soon if more confirmation comes about the 1492 DR date.
I was asking for the date of "BG:DA", i.e., Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, not BG:DiA. Where in the video game can you find the date for Dark Alliance? Thanks.


The wiki got its facts straight, I have the Descent into Avernus book myself and I can confirm what the wiki says is true in the pages it refers to. That confirmation you are hoping for might turn out differently than you'd expect. Besides, that tollhouse is abandoned, meaning the ledger that said the current year is 1492 DR might be two years old or more. And chances are there might be something in Act 2 or 3 that disproves the 1492 DR date when the game is fully released. Why are you so determined to believe the game's chronology is more important than the chronology established by a source book? People used to say years ago that the novels and sourcebooks are more canon than the games, you know. They used that excuse to claim the Baldur's Gate novels were more canon than the games they are based on.

It has been 15 years since I've played Dark Alliance, so I can't give you a definite answer, but the Forgotten Realms wiki says that the game's story is in 1374 DR in its detailed information about certain characters and locations like the Onyx Tower.

Last edited by BladeDancer; 05/11/20 05:10 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Priest

I'm aware of that note of the Forgotten Realms wiki, and it will likely be changed soon if more confirmation comes about the 1492 DR date.
I was asking for the date of "BG:DA", i.e., Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, not BG:DiA. Where in the video game can you find the date for Dark Alliance? Thanks.


The wiki got its facts straight, I have the Descent into Avernus book myself and I can confirm what the wiki says is true in the pages it refers to. That confirmation you are hoping for might turn out differently than you'd expect. Besides, that tollhouse is abandoned, meaning the ledger that said the current year is 1492 DR might be two years old or more. And chances are there might be something in Act 2 or 3 that disproves the 1492 DR date when the game is fully released. Why are you so determined to believe the game's chronology is more important than the chronology established by a source book? People used to say years ago that the novels and sourcebooks are more canon than the games, you know. They used that excuse to claim the Baldur's Gate novels were more canon than the games they are based on.

It has been 15 years since I've played Dark Alliance, so I can't give you a definite answer, but the Forgotten Realms wiki says that the game's story is in 1374 DR in its detailed information about certain characters and locations like the Onyx Tower.


1492 DR is also mentioned in the Grove's Annals for the entry of Halsin going out adventuring with Aradin's group and that was only a few hours/days ago in-game.

It's probably a mistake, it's not like they they can't fix it before release.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
The Curse of Sthrad module was just recently revamped, but I only just now found a connection to how this could play out in BG3 (as they said they were working closely with WotC) and the connection with Vampires and our vampire boy potentially.
(Curse of Sthrad and BG:Descent into avernus spoilers+game theory below)

I think some or all of the people around us will turn out to be this (I recommend watching whole, but timestamped the interesting part) - https://youtu.be/F6i5vjVeEQo?t=144 + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e22q8l2Jpak&feature=youtu.be&t=712 that Chris Perkins talks about. Insane? Please, hear me out;
Who I found that made it to Barovia so far: Volo, Minsc, Jander (has potential BG overlaps with Astarion - his master was Cassir), Mordekainen (possibly something to do with Gale's quest?), I think there might be other ones...
With this theory in mind I think it's good to revisit Shadowfell and shadow people too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR3eI37-r74
The way he also describes how deeds in regions affect how the shadowfell forms. I believe it might play a role in BG3. Each region might have a select of choices, some maybe you can decide if you corrupt them or not and others will depend if you affect your companions/npcs or not. For example - how you can make Wyll torture the guy for Spike or torture him yourself. Or how you can let Astarion flip out at the hunter or kill the hunter yourself.

It's like shadow people are leaking, literally and you might be expected to either babysit them or let the chaos run.
Sthrad and Shadowfell
Gur vs. Vistani
Gur sounds like Vistani before they got corrupted by Shar and drenched in shadowfell juice.

(I am also inclined to say that following Astarion's choices will somehow result into bringing Cyric back in power, but that's a rabbit hole I am entirely too tired to explain right now.)

Last edited by Vamathi; 05/11/20 11:13 PM.

“There is only one thing we say to Death:
Not today.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Its 100 years in the future?

I was wondering why Wheloon is a prison in DDO lol

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5